Modi, not the media, will decide Pakistan policy, and Kashmir's future

As stalemate is not a solution and trying the same thing repeatedly expecting different results or waiting for the other side to set the narrative can also not be seen as viable option.

With the recent killings and brutal mutilations of two Indian soldiers in Kashmir coming to light, the media is on its way, again, to try to create public pressure and forcing the government into retaliation.

This is not the first time the media has done this and it will not be the last. The anger and the overflowing emotion for retribution in the people, following such a brutal act is quite understandable.

But rather than helping, the creation of hysteria by the media and calls for immediate action which seems to be passing off as journalism, is more likely to force the government into making a mistake than achieving a meaningful result.

The media has if any, role to play in it. But given the enthusiasm of the same news anchors that raised the pitch after last year's Pathankot attacks, it seems they believe actions of the Indian army which were termed as 'surgical strikes,' were its achievement and not an action taken by the government which was following a plan.

Whatever maybe the opinion on the government's decision, whether it was right or not, it is the government's mandate, and only its, to choose how to handle such a situation especially with another country involved.

The Kashmir issue is as complicated and uncertain as it can get. Unlike other more conventional conflict zones, Kashmir is only in its present situation because of its positioning on the map between two countries, and would not have been an issue if it existed in any other part of India.

Whether it suits the various sides or not, it has to be acknowledged that there are three sides involved. India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir.

Pakistan and the dichotomy of its power system

The role of India's neighbour in Kashmir is well known and since the 90's when terrorism started in Kashmir, it is the single most important factor. If it decides to give up its interest in Kashmir and does so tomorrow, the valley would immediately cease to be in a crisis.

And no matter how many people wish for this to happen, it is not going to. And the reason for this is simple, that Pakistan gains from the ongoing conflict. To be more precise, the Pakistani army does. While conflicts make governments weaker, it makes armies stronger.

The policy of Indian governments of the past, and which was continued when Prime Minister Narendra Modi took charge is of dealing with the Pakistan government and trying to have friendly relations with it and find solutions to long-standing problems.

But no matter what its government wants, it is the Pakistan army that decides what the country's Kashmir, and in turn India, policy will be.

Every time the two civilian governments have tried to find a way to have friendly relations, from the Lahore declaration to Modi going to Pakistan on Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's birthday or the back channel talks between the two countries through a meeting between Indian businessman Sajjan Jindal and Sharif, the Pakistani army has been able to derail them by following every such attempt with an attack on Indian territory.

Such attempts by the Indian establishment to negotiate solely with the Pakistan's government is a negotiation between unequals and can reap no results. The negotiation can only find a solution when it takes place between the two main players, the Indian government and the Pakistani army, with decision-making authority.

India and it's changing Pakistan Policy

This is the negotiation that the prime minister and his trusted lieutenant in foreign policy, National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval, are trying to have with the other side. This cannot be done through the conventional means of sitting across tables, at least not till a civilian government is in place in Pakistan.

The only tool in such a dialogue is the cost of conflict, that comes not only in the form of international pressure, but actions that cost lives and monetary resources, which could hurt Pakistan as it is engaged on its western front in Afghanistan. And to make all of this visible to the world is an important aspect of it.

The publicity that followed the 'Surgical strikes' was not for the sake of building political capital, though a lot of those involved did try, but to display that costs would occur in both the countries not just one. And make the countries around the world take notice, that things could get ugly, and have far-reaching ramifications. It was backed up by a diplomatic offensive which resulted in nations condemning Pakistan.-pp

The Modi government came to power with a majority not won by anyone in decades. With such a mandate comes the power to choose and even change the country's policies.

Except at times of war, the policy that India has applied in terms of Pakistan has been consistent. That of growing ties with the civilian government in power and issuing condemnation when attacks take place. Even if army action took action, it was never made public.

For the first time since independence, we now have a government of a party on the political right which is not dependent on support from others. The conservative government's throughout the world have a consistent way of responding to such attacks. For example, the way Republican Presidents of the US respond to a strike against them is markedly different from those who are Democrats.

The problem with such policy is that it entails losses in the short run. At home and abroad. Under these circumstances, a lot of criticism follows, parts of which are merited and others not. The criticism of the government's policy is not necessarily a bad as it might point to legitimate concerns of those affected and make the government take notice.

And it is at this juncture that the courage of the leader's conviction in the path chosen is tested. Along with their ability to be humble, accept mistakes, and undertake course correction if they feel that mistakes have been made.

But in a complicated conflict, the body count is not always, and sometimes not the best way, to judge whether a mistake has been made. And that is what seems to be what the present leadership seems to believe.

Kashmir and its people

For all intents and purposes, except in the case of a full-fledged war, it will be in the valley that such a battle will be mostly played out. And it is in Kashmir that the price of the new Indian policy on Pakistan will have to be paid.

As a consequence, the risk is that the people of Kashmir will end up being over-generalised and put into a single bracket of either 'with us' or 'against us,' by the people and the establishments of India and Pakistan.

Kashmir has been witnessing turbulent times since July of last when the Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani was killed by the Indian security establishment. Protests have been a part of life in Kashmir since, with ordinary people caught in the middle.

Recent reports have suggested that even the ordinary people from the state have been joining in the protests. And maybe is the reason, recently concluded Srinagar constituency by polls for the Lok Sabha witnessed only a 7 voter turnout.

These can again be seen as of the change in of Kashmir by the central government, which is part of the policy called the "Doval Doctrine," which includes stand against protesters and no talks with the separatist leaders such as those of the Hurriyat.

This change has come in following what the current dispensation clearly feels a failure of the steps the governments of the past have taken and not brought results worthy of them being continued. As stalemate is not a solution and trying the same thing repeatedly expecting different results or waiting for the other side to set the narrative can also not be seen as viable option.

And now

Going by the previous actions of this government and in case the same policy is to be continued, there will eventually be a reply of some sort to the recent actions of the Pakistan Army.

So the media has to realise that its constant effort to build up mass hysteria does not affect or help the government's foreign policy, and in the end might only lead to further alienation of the already troubled people of the valley.

This is not a game, it is a solution chosen by leaders of the world's largest democracy trying to solve one of the toughest problems of geopolitics that exist in the world. It involves human lives, territorial integrity, a checkered past, but the mandate for finding solutions to it quite clearly lies in political decision making.

OneIndia News